GunZ: The Duel

Read this first This is the place to request sockpuppet checks and other investigations requiring access to the Checkuser privilege. Possible alternatives are listed below. Requests likely to be accepted Code Situation Solution, requirements A Blatant attack or vandalism accounts, need IP block Submit new section at #Requests for IP check, below B Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by arbitration committee Submit case subpage, including link to closed arb case C Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism with many incidents Submit case subpage, including diffs D Vote fraud, closed vote, fraud affects outcome Submit case subpage, including link to closed vote E 3RR violation using sockpuppets Submit case subpage, including diffs of violation F Evading blocks, bans and remedies issued by community Submit case subpage, including link to evidence of remedy G Does not fit above, but you believe check needed Submit case subpage, briefly summarize and justify Requests likely to be rejected Situation Solution Obvious, disruptive sock puppet Block, no checkuser needed Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits Block, no checkuser needed Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are rarely accepted, please do not ask Related to ongoing arbitration case Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages Vote fraud, ongoing vote Wait until vote closes before listing, or post at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets Other disruption of articles List at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets Open proxy, IP address already known List at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies You want access to the checkuser tool yourself Contact the Arbitration Committee, but such access is granted rarely When submitting a request If submitting a new case subpage, use the inputbox below; if adding to an existing case subpage, see WP:RFCU/P#Repeat requests. Choose the code letter that best fits your request. Provide evidence such as diff links as required or requested. Note that some code letters inherently require specific evidence. When listing suspected accounts or IP addresses, use the {{checkuser}} or {{checkip}} templates. Please do not use this template in a section header. You may add your request to the top of the #Outstanding requests section, by adding {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CASENAMEHERE}}. If you do not, clerks should check for pages in Category:Checkuser requests to be listed and will do this for you. Sign your request. After submitting a request Purge cache Checkuser clerks assist with maintenance of the page but do not directly respond to checkuser requests. If you need help, post at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser. Responses will be brief in order to comply with Wikipedia's privacy policy. Likewise, the privacy policy often prevents us from running a check which has the effect of revealing IP addresses. Due to technical factors, results are not always clear. Check back regularly to see the outcome of your request. Checkusers and clerks do not generally issue blocks. You may need to do this yourself or submit a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Case subpages are typically archived several days after a checkuser responds. More procedures at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures. Privacy violation? If you feel that a checkuser has led to a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy regarding yourself, please refer the case to the Ombudsman commission.

this header: view • edit

File a Checkuser Request

Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case. If you require help or advice, ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser. If a case subpage already exists, edit the existing page instead, either adding to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top (if the case has been archived). When editing an existing case, be sure to list it here or add Category:Checkuser requests to be listed to the subpage. If creating a new case subpage, add the name of the main account (or "puppetmaster", not the sockpuppet!) in the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix. Do not remove the text in the box, add the name to the end only (that is, append the name to the existing text). Then press "Request a checkuser" and you will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request. Example: if you want to request a checkuser on User:John Doe, enter the text: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Doe <inputbox> type=create editintro=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Header preload=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample default=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ buttonlabel=Request a checkuser bgcolor=#F8FCFF width=50 </inputbox>

Indicators and templates   (v  · e)
These indicators are used by Checkusers, SPI clerks and other patrolling users, to allow easier at-a-glance reading of their notes, actions and comments.
Case decisions:
IP blocked  {{IPblock}}	Tagged  {{Stagged}}
Blocked but awaiting tags  {{Sblock}}	Not possible  {{Impossible}}
Blocked and tagged  {{Blockedandtagged}}	Blocked without tags  {{Blockedwithouttags}}
No tags  {{No tags}}	Blocked and tagged. Closing.  {{Blockedtaggedclosing}}
Information:
Additional information needed  {{MoreInfo}}	Deferred  {{Deferred}}
Note:  {{TakeNote}}	In progress  {{Inprogress}}
Clerk actions:
Clerk assistance requested:  {{Clerk Request}}	Clerk note:  {{Clerk-Note}}
Delisted  {{Delisted}}	Relisted  {{Relisted}}
Clerk declined  {{Decline}}	Clerk endorsed  {{Endorse}}
Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention  {{Selfendorse}}	CheckUser requested  {{CURequest}}
Specific to CheckUser:
Confirmed  {{Confirmed}}	Unrelated  {{Unrelated}}
Confirmed with respect to the named user(s).  No comment with respect to IP address(es).  {{Confirmed-nc}}
Technically indistinguishable  {{Technically indistinguishable}}
Likely  {{Likely}}	Unlikely  {{Unlikely}}
Possible  {{Possible}}	Inconclusive  {{Inconclusive}}
Declined  {{Declined}}	Unnecessary  {{Unnecessary}}
Stale (too old)  {{StaleIP}}	No comment  {{Nocomment}}
CheckUser is not a crystal ball  {{Crystalball}}	CheckUser is not for fishing  {{Fishing}}
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust  {{Pixiedust}}	The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says:  {{8ball}}
Endorsed by a checkuser  {{Cu-endorsed}}	Check declined by a checkuser  {{Cudecline}}
Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)  {{possilikely}}

Outstanding requests

---

Can we get a quick WP:DUCK ruling that User:AnarchistAssassin is the same editor? Brand new person edit warring over same stuff on same article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The directions below do not work -- wouldn't need a checkuser for such an obvious case and that page is locked anyway so I can't add the notice. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Completed requests

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I'm not sure if I'm going about this the right way, but I believe a rangeblock is in order to stop this ongoing problem, and a combination of analysis of the suspected and confirmed socks of this user, along with some checkuser evidence would probably be the way to determine exactly where to block. These are the suspected, although a great many of them admitted to it, so they are actually confirmed. These are the other confirmed socks, I believe some of them were already investigated with checkuser. As a non-admin, I'm more or less in the dark about exactly how rangeblocks are done, but clearly there is a serious problem here, and there is a definite pattern to the IP addresses used by this banned user. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

---

---

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum
This page is a soft redirect.

Jvolkblum 15

Suspected sock puppets

• Moriarty09 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jjespere (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 98.14.133.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.133.55.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.34.157.70 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 76.99.17.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 64.255.180.74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Code letter:F

• Supporting evidence:

Most of the recent Jvolkblum-like activity has been from IPs that are used no more than once or twice, but there also are some registered users. I don't think I've captured the full list of IPs.

• Moriarty09 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has an edit record that is strongly consistent with Jvolkblum; has been blocked and reverted by Wknight94.
  • Comment by doncram Is this where discussion of evidence occurs? If not, please advise me and/or move this comment. On the case of Moriarty09, the four edits currently showing do not provide evidence that convinces me this is the same editor as Jvolkblum, because I believe that it is possible that there are more than one New Rochelle area editors who have been swept up in the accusations here. I note this as a kind of technical objection here, because I do think it likely that Moriarty09 is the same editor as some other socks previously swept up into this, and there may be no practical difference in treatment which can now be implemented. I cannot and do not want to review the entire Jvolkblum history and separate out which ones in the history were in fact separate persons. But as I stated in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Banned user Jvolkblum and New Rochelle, NY articles, I believe that it would be very difficult for any new wikipedia editor to emerge in the New Rochelle area without editing some of the articles previously edited by any of the previously identified socks, and then experiencing heavy-handed deletions and being labelled a sock. If an unfair sock accusation happened, i do not see what other recourse a would-be new editor would have, other than opening a new account and continuing to edit.
  • Anyhow, the Moriarty09 editor made 2 entirely unrelated edits (a copyedit to the the Gridiron building article that improved the article in my view, and an edit to the Ann Street (Manhattan) article about which i have no opinion). Then, the editor added a New Rochelle red-link to a list of Cemeteries named Holy Sepulchre Cemetery, which seems like a fine edit, although perhaps revealing an interest in New Rochelle-area articles. I don't see that as adequate to identify the editor is Jvolkblum. Then, the editor made one comment in the above-linked wt:NRHP discussion, defending an edit made by another account in the article about New Rochelle, an edit which Orlady brought up as an example of probable source fabrication by Jvolkblum socks. I take it was then that Wknight blocked the Moriarty09 editor. I don't dispute that Moriarty09 is likely the same as the other account. However, with further research it turns out that Orlady's allegation of fabrication was incorrect, and that Moriarty09's comment was substantially correct. So, I don't see any evidence of destructive editing by Moriarty09; it is only an association to previous socks (and not necessarily to the original Jvolkblum) which is likely here. And, I don't see that justice or whatever is served by blocking this one account. Given the discusson at wt:NRHP in which i stated an interest in making an unban proposal, i think that it could be helpful to allow Moriarty09 to be unblocked, if only to allow the person to show restraint. By this comment, though, i want mainly to note the possibility that this Moriarty09 editor is not the same editor as Jvolkblum. doncram (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • In partial response to Doncram's comments, Jvolkblum socks have done extensive editing in some Manhattan articles. Ann Street (Manhattan) is one of these. It has been edited previously by at least three different Jvolkblum sockpuppets. Moriarty09's edit to that article restored language previously provided by one or more of these socks. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Jjespere (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) apparently recreated one or more Jvolkblum articles before being blocked and reverted by Wknight94.
• 98.14.133.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) restored a Jvolkblum edit that I had deleted a short while earlier.
• 174.133.55.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) added an unsourced paragraph to Beechmont (New Rochelle), which is one of Jvolkblum's articles.
• 174.34.157.70 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) posted on Doncram's talk page to complain that Wknight94 and I are picking on people interested in contributing content about New Rochelle.
• 76.99.17.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) made three edits to New City, New York, including deleting an image without explanation and for no apparent reason. This may be coincidence, but Jvolkblum has sometimes inflicted this type of minor damage on articles for New City and other communities that are near New Rochelle.

No comment concerning Jvolkblum, but I would note that New City is not really near New Rochelle. New Rochelle is on the east side of Westchester, on the Long Island Sound, and New City is in Rockland County about 30 miles away, across the Hudson River and inland and north. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a little bit later:

• 64.255.180.74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has just one edit. A little while ago this IP user reverted Wknight94's changes to Ann Street (Manhattan), calling them "vandalism." --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 Possible that Moriarty09 is related. A good deal of his editing is through an98.14.133.106 open proxy (since blocked).

Jjespere is also  Possible, although I would rephrase that as "very likely" on behavioural evidence, looking at his deleted contributions. The same user is also the IP 98.14.133.106.

174.133.55.25 appears to be a proxying/IP-masking service -- WHOIS shows network:Organization-Name:My privacy tools. The range appears to be 174.133.55.16/28.

174.34.157.70 may also be an open proxy -- the WHOIS information gives Ubiquity Server Solutions Chicago, but I haven't got access to a port scanner at the moment. The range is 174.34.156.0/22.

I don't see any technical reason to suspect 76.99.17.30 of being Jvolkblum.

64.255.180.74 also might be a proxy -- it is registered to Jupiter Hosting Corporation. The range is 64.255.160.0/19.

These need further investigating -- I think it is likely that these three are proxies and that the user behind them is indeed Jvolkblum.

[[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 01:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see the 64.255.*.* addresses in my sleep since Jvolkblum uses them often. FWIW, I perused one subrange and almost every edit was to New Rochelle articles and some Indian television list. That seemed like a strange pattern to me so a range of open proxies makes perfect sense. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC

Thanks. Jvolkblum has been a heavy user of "My Privacy Tools." Also, Jupiter Hosting is one of the ISPs that Jvolkblum has used in the past, and there's been a long history of Jvolkblum edits from open-proxy and suspected open-proxy IPs. A major reason for requesting checks on these users is to see if there are any sleeper users on the same IPs -- I hope that any such users on these IPs have been quietly tagged and blocked. --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking again, 64.255.160.0/19 probably isn't a range of open proxies. It does appear, however, to be a range used by Opera Mini users, which ties in with other Jvolkblum patterns of editing. Going on a wider check of the range and taking editing behaviour into consideration, it appears that Tenagrimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BQEDUDE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are also related. There were no unblocked accounts on any of the other IPs. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Both accuonts blocked and a couple articles deleted. BTW, to Doncram, for a reminder of why Jvolkblum is banned, see Talk:Suburb#Copyvio and plagiarism. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I hope you don't mind that I provide, at that Talk page, a devil's advocate-type of response. I understand the example is one where one of the users caught up in this added material to an article without providing properly explicit sourcing. Eventually, the contribution is tracked down and entirely removed. I don't know how to say this without perhaps appearing a bit sarcastic, but this provides a complementary example to at least one case where the user added material with essentially proper sourcing. In the properly sourced case, the contribution is similarly removed, completely, by one of the enforcers here, with erroneous accusations that the user must have fabricated the source. So, why bother with the semi-difficult work of composing proper footnote references? It seems to me that there is an incredible amount of time and resources being put in here, to suppress a would-be contributor, and that you leave no alternative for the user(s) but to create more accounts and to keep editing and to play the big game that you and he/they are playing. I apologize if this does sound wrong; i don't mean to offend and I am not confident that I am expressing this properly. As I state in my devil's advocate-type response at the Suburb talk page, I do abhor the addition of unsourced material to articles, and I have devoted a lot of energy to discussing the general problem. Further, not said there, i have devoted a lot of thought and energy to specifically addressing the problem in NRHP / historic sites articles, and to trying to keep the problem out of this broad area that i work in. So, I should summarize that I am torn here, between defending someone who seems to be unfairly treated, vs. agreeing whole-heartedly that the actions of that person deserve to be censured. doncram (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This went beyond plagiarism into copyright violation. Most was copied word-for-word. But this isn't the right place to discuss that issue. I responded at Talk:Suburb and maybe it's time to raise this at WP:AN. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

---

IP/A

Requests for IP check

• Vandal and attack accounts may be listed here for the purpose of identifying and blocking the underlying IP address or open proxy. Requests to confirm sockpuppets of known users should be listed in the sockpuppet section above.
• If you already know the IP address of the suspected open proxy, list it at Wikipedia:Open Proxies instead.
• Use === Subsections ===; do not create subpages.
• List user names using the {{checkuser|username}} template. Add new reports to the top of the section.
• Requests may be acted on or declined according to the discretion of the checkuser admins. Responses will be noted here. Specific evidence of abuse in the form of diffs may be required so as to avoid the impression of fishing for evidence.
• Answered requests will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive for 7 days, after which they will be deleted. No separate archive (other than the page history) will be maintained.

Non-compliant requests

NC

Requests that do not follow the instructions at the top of the page will be moved here. Common reasons for noncompliance include:

• Did not cite a code letter, or cite more than one code letter.
• Did not cite any supporting diffs if the code letter requires diffs.
• Included IP addresses.

The specific deficiencies may be noted with Additional information needed. Cases which are corrected may be moved back to the pending section. Cases which are not corrected will be deleted after 3 days.

Please note that meeting these three criteria does not ensure that your check will be run. The checkusers retain final discretion over all cases.